Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Md. Ibrahim S/O Md. Vazir and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR860; 2002(3)MhLj824
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition challenges the Constitutional validity of revised recruitment rules in respect of Maharashtra Finance and Accounts Service Class II brought into force with effect from 25-3-1971.2. Petitioner No. 1 joined service as a Clerk with the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the office of the Block Development Officer at Kalamnuri Dist. Parbhani, His services were allotted to Zilla Parishad in the year 1962, initially on temporary basis. In 1971, he was absorbed in the cadre of District Services of Zilla Parishad as Junior Assistant Class III and later on promoted as Senior Assistant (Accounts) Grade III. In the year 1975, he was again promoted as Deputy Accountant Grade II and lastly in the year 1984, as Head Accountant Grade I in the office of Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. Petitioner No. 1 at present is a member of District Services Class III (Accounts) Grade I.As per Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Dis...
Herat R. Parmar (Ms.) Vs. Maharashtra Medical Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Bom104; 2002(2)BomCR743; 2002(1)MhLj846
S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the petitioner is challenging the order of the respondent No. 1 -- Maharashtra Medical Council dated 21-3-1996 by which the Maharashtra Medical Council has accepted the opinion of its Executive Committee that the respondents-Doctors are not guilty of any negligence in discharge of their professional duties; in particular, in treating the petitioner's father at Ashirwad Heart Hospital, Ghatkopar (East), Bombay.2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent - Maharashtra Medical Council ought not to have accepted the recommendations of its Executive Committee that there is no prima facie case against the respondents - Doctors i.e., respondents No. 2 to 5 without affording the opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before taking such a decision. The impugned decision of the Maharashtra Medical Council dated 21-3-1996 has been taken and communicated, admittedly without hearing her.3. The...
Ceat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT1184Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The question for consideration in appeal E/330/00 is the classification of nylon tyre cord fabric that the appellant coats with rubber (by dipping it in a solution of rubber) and thereafter subject to calendaring, and consequent liability to penalty. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in this appeal confirmed the classification determined by the Deputy Commissioner of these goods as nylon tyre cord fabric under heading 59.02 of the tariff and the penalty of Rs. 4 crores imposed on the appellant for failing to pay this duty. The appellant claims classification in heading 59.06 as rubberised textile fabric.3. The ratio of the unreported decision of the Tribunal in Apollo Tyres v. CCE relied to in the later decision in CEAT Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (111) ELT 383 is that these goods are classifiable as rubberised fabric under heading 59.06. No reason is shown as to why the ratio of this decision would not apply. We therefore confirm the classification that the appellant claimed, ...
Navnit V. Shroff Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT650Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in this appeal with the valuation of trimpots (which appears to be trimmer potentiometer), transistor and diodes imported by the appellant. The order of the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the finding of the Additional Collector of Customs that the appellant underdeclared the value of these goods and ordered enhancing their value and ordering confiscation and imposing penalty on the appellant.2. Neither the Commissioner (Appeal) nor the Additional Collector cite any evidence of the value of contemporaneously imported goods identical or similar to the transistors and diodes. The transistors which the appellant found to be undervalued were of the type C 1741, C 2551, C 3383 and C 4038. The department did not find for comparison import of any of these types of transistors. The Additional Commissioner has applied the values of other types of transistors, such as C 2236, C 1474, which he found to have been imported at or about the same time.He says that since the goods un...
Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Mardia Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT645Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is the eligibility to modvat credit under rule 57Q of the duty paid on various items that are used in the respondent's factory in the manufacture of days and dye intermediates. The gods are jacketed vessels,storage tanks, tubes, ball value, trough, tubes and plates. The jacketed vessel is stated to be a reacting vessel; the tanks are used for storage of raw materials, goods in process or finished goods. The tubes are stated to connect various tanks and other machines with each other to provide for the uninterrupted flow of materials at various stages of manufacture. The trough serves the same purpose, transport of materials. Plates provide cladding to the vessels and tanks. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that all these goods except plates and sheets would rightly be considered capital goods within the meaning of rule 57Q. He remanded to the Asst.Commissioner the matter of verif...
Haresh Chellaram Gidwani and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT377Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeals are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that Vishnu Dyeing and Printing Works was liable to pay the duty short levied on fabric that it processed and cleared between April 1997 and May 1998, imposing a penalty under Rule 209A on Haresh C.Gidwani, the supplied of the grey fabrics. The notice issued to both these person invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under Section 11A(1) of the Act on the ground that the correct price of the grey fabric had been suppressed from the department. It alleged that the short levy had occurred because the declared cost of the grey fabric was lower than the prices at which the supplier purchased it. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Asst.Commissioner's order confirming the proposal in the notice demanding the duty alleged to have been short paid, and imposed penalty on both manufacturer and supplier of the grey fabrics.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim of the ...
Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Gmbhy and ors. Vs. Hindustan Le ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ453Bom
ORDER1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction and other reliefs on the allegation that the Defendants have infringed their copyright in the drawing and the mould used for manufacture of the toothbrushes.2. The facts that are material and relevant for consideration and decision of this Notice of Motion are as under :--The plaintiff No. 1 in the plaint claims that the plaintiff No. 1 is a German Company having its principal place of business at Hermannstrasse 7, 77815 Buhl, Baden, Germany. The plaintiff No. 1 was formerly known as Lingner + Fischer GmbH, having changed its name to that of the plaintiff No. 1 in 1996. It has at all material times been engaged in a variety of business in the healthcare field, more particularly in the design and sale of toothbrushes. The plaintiff No. 2 is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, and is the exclusive licensee in India under the several cop...
Sbi Commercial and International Bank Ltd. Vs. Badridass Gauridatt (P. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)3BOMLR655; 2002(2)MhLj749
ORDER1. The respondents have taken out the above Judge's summons for the following reliefs :'(a) delay, if any, in taking out the present application be condoned;(b) the dates of payment set out in Clauses 2 and 8 of the consent terms dated 22-3-2001 be modified and extended to commence from 3140-2001;(c) it be declared that petition No. 159 of 2000 does not stand admitted and the official liquidator. High Court, Bombay not to stand appointed as Provisional Liquidator as contemplated in the consent terms dated 22-3-2001;(d) it be declared that the official liquidator. High Court, Bombay not to act pursuant to Clause 3 of the consent terms dated 22-3-2001 until the expiry of the extended period, that is 31-10-2001.2. It would be relevant to note certain salient events to appreciate the present Judge's summons and the controversy therein.3. On 2-2-2000 the petitioner bank filed a petition under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') seeking orders from the compa...
Supertex Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Bom18
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner-company which is duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has impugned the action of the respondents in not granting to the company the subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme promulgated by the Government of India in 1971. The prayers may be noted verbatim :(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the circular dated 20th July, 1989 and circular dated 9th June, 1988 (Exhibits 'H-I' and 'M' hereto) is null and void and unconstitutional; (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the papers and records pertaining to the petitioners case and after going into the same and examining the legality thereof to quash and/or set aside the circular dated 20th July, 1989 and circular dated 9th June,1988 and the orders dated 18th May, 1990 and ...
Divisional Forest Officer, Amravati Division Vs. Gattusa Sakharam Dhol ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2305; 2002(2)BomCR178; 2002BomCR(Cri)292
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. Badar, learned Special Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner who is Divisional Forest Officer was required to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent No. 1 for having failed to comply with the directions of this Court issued while disposing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 246/1993 by its judgment and order dated 29-3-1995 under which respondent No. 1 was directed to produce the truck before the Authorised Officer i.e. the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Amravati immediately. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 Gattusa Sakharam Dhole is the owner of Motor Truck bearing registration No. MTV 1445 which was caught while transporting illegally fell teak timber. The proceedings came to be initiated against respondent No. 1 by the Authorised Officer for confiscation of the Motor Truck as provided under section 61-A of the Indian Fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »